System for performing assessment without testing

ABSTRACT

A system for educational assessment without testing is provided that includes one or more client systems that are connected to a network allowing students or school officials to communicate with an education framework that performs and manages educational assessment. The one or more client systems issue a message to the education framework requesting a task to be performed. The educational assessment is administered independent of one or more educators so as to avoid interruption of instruction time. A server system receives the message and the education framework proceeds to process the contents of the message. The education framework includes a plurality of programming modules being executed on the server system that provides to educators specific information used for the educational assessment based on the contents of the message. The programming modules assist in calculating and determining one or more parameters for the educational assessment of the students as well as providing specific reports to educators as to the progress of the students.

PRIORITY INFORMATION

This application is a Continuation of and claims priority to and thebenefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/209,722, filed Aug. 15,2011 and entitled “SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING ASSESSMENT WITHOUT TESTING,”now U.S. Pat. No. 9,299,266, which in turn claims priority from U.S.Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/386,089 filed Sep. 24, 2010. Theentire contents of the aforementioned applications are hereinincorporated by reference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The invention is related to the field of educational assessment, and inparticular using an education framework that allows teachers, schoolsand districts to assess the educational needs of their students withoutstopping instruction to administer a traditional test.

Educational assessment is the process of documenting, usually inmeasurable terms, knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. Assessmentcan focus on the individual learner, the learning community (class,school, district or other organized group of learners), the institution,or the educational system as a whole. According to Dr. Joe Torgesen,“The goal [of an assessment plan] is to gain enough information aboutstudent progress to make effective decisions while minimizing the timespent administering assessments.”

Assessment is often divided into formative and summative categories forthe purpose of considering different objectives for assessmentpractices. Summative assessment is generally carried out at the end of acourse or project. In an educational setting, summative assessments aretypically used to assign students a course grade. Formative assessmentis generally carried out throughout a course or project. Formativeassessment is used to assess student progress, and aid in makinginstructional changes. In an educational setting, formative assessmentis most typically seen as frequent progress monitoring of studentperformance and would not necessarily be used for grading purposes, butrather for determining if a student is learning in his/her currentenvironment.

Summative and formative assessments are often referred to in a learningcontext as assessment of learning and assessment for learningrespectively. Assessment of learning is generally summative in natureand intended to measure learning outcomes and report those outcomes tostudents, parents, and administrators. Assessment of learning generallyoccurs at the conclusion of a unit, class, semester, or academic year.Assessment for learning is generally formative in nature and is used byteachers to consider approaches to teaching and next steps forindividual learners and the class.

Summative and formative assessments can be seen as the overarchingumbrella terms of assessment. Under these two categories are four typesof assessment: screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic, and outcomeassessments. Typically, screening tools, and progress monitoringassessments fall under the category of formative while diagnostic andoutcome measures fall under the summative category.

Screening tools, often referred to as ‘universal screeners’ provideschools with a tool that provides a quick way to assess all of thestudents in a particular grade or the whole school. These screeners giveteachers and administrators a general sense of whether or not thestudent is on course for typical progress, needs some attention or is atgreat risk for reading failure. Those who score in the needing someattention or at high risk categories are usually identified as studentswho will be progress monitored using formative assessment tools. Thefrequency of these progress monitoring tests varies depending on thelevel of risk (i.e., the higher the risk, the more often the studentsare assessed). The results of the progress monitoring assessments areused by teachers to determine if the students are responding, orlearning, in their current educational environment and if not, adjustthe instructional intensity for the students.

Diagnostic Assessments traditionally provide an overall profile of astudent's ability and can be thought of as summative, but subtests oflarger diagnostic tools can be used as screeners or progress monitoringmeasures and therefore be classified as formative. Diagnosticassessments are lengthier in administration and therefore should only begiven when additional or more reliable information can be gained fromthe test. Outcome measures are strong examples of summative assessment.They typically are given toward the end of the school year and provideanswers to the whether or not the student is able to apply the knowledgehe/she has learned and can also indicate how effective overallinstruction has been for the class or school.

There is a need for assessing student abilities while at the same timeallowing teachers, school and district level administrators better, moretimely, access to information from the assessments. The invention uses anovel technique for assessment that allows teachers/schools/districts toobtain assessment-quality data to make effective decisions withoutstopping instruction to administer a traditional test.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect of the invention, there is provided a system foreducational assessment without testing. The system includes one or moreclient systems that are connected to a network allowing students oreducators to communicate with an education framework that performs andmanages educational assessment. The one or more client systems issue amessage to the education framework requesting a task to be performed.The educational assessment is administered independent of one or moreeducators so as to avoid interruption of instruction time. A serversystem receives the message and the education framework proceeds toprocess the contents of the message. The education framework includes aplurality of programming modules being executed on the server systemthat provides to the educators specific information used for theeducational assessment based on the contents of the message. Theprogramming modules assist in calculating and determining one or moreparameters for the educational assessment of the students as well asproviding specific reports to the educators as to the progress of thestudents.

According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided a methodof performing educational assessment without comprising a test event.The method includes providing one or more client systems that areconnected to a network allowing students or educators to communicatewith an education framework that performs and manages educationalassessment. The one or more client systems issue a message to theeducation framework requesting a task to be performed. The educationalassessment is administered independent of one or more educators so as toavoid interruption of instruction time. The method includes receivingthe message and the education framework proceeds to process the contentsof the message. The education framework includes a plurality ofprogramming modules being executed on a server system that provides tothe educators specific information used for the educational assessmentbased on the contents of the message. The programming modules assist incalculating and determining one or more parameters for the educationalassessment of the students as well as providing specific reports to theeducators as to the progress of the students.

According to another aspect of the invention, there is provided acomputer readable medium for storing a program being executed on aneducation framework, the program performs a method of performingeducational assessment without comprising a test event. The methodincludes providing one or more client systems that are connected to anetwork allowing students or educators to communicate with an educationframework that performs and manages educational assessment. The one ormore client systems issue a message to the education frameworkrequesting a task to be performed. The educational assessment isadministered independent of one or more educators so as to avoidinterruption of instruction time. The method includes receiving themessage and the education framework proceeds to process the contents ofthe message. The education framework includes a plurality of programmingmodules being executed on a server system that provides to the educatorsspecific information used for the educational assessment based on thecontents of the message. The programming modules assist in calculatingand determining one or more parameters for the educational assessment ofthe students as well as providing specific reports to the educators asto the progress of the students.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating as education framework usedin accordance with the invention;

FIG. 2 is a table illustrating recommendations used in the Prescriptionof Intensity and categorized by grade, performance predictor, and skillset used in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 3 is a process flow illustrating the calculation of currentnorm-referenced parameters used in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 4 is a process flow illustrating the calculation of historicalnorm-referenced parameters used in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating a district report generatedby the reporting module in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating a school report generated bythe reporting module in accordance with the invention;

FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram illustrating a teacher report generated bythe reporting module in accordance with the invention; and

FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram illustrating a section of a teacher reportgenerated by the reporting module in accordance with the invention usingperformance predictors.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The invention describes an education framework that allows foreducational assessment without testing. The framework uses a noveltechnique in educational assessment which is then incorporated into anetwork environment. This allows teachers, and school and districtadministrators to assess the progress of their students as well asproviding graphical illustration and report generation illustrating theprogress of the students.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating a novel education framework 2used in accordance with the invention. The network framework 2 includesa database 18 as well as a client system 20 and a server system 4 thatcommunicate with each other using commonly known network client-servercommunication systems. The client system 20 includes one more clientcomputer systems that are coupled via a network. In this case, theclient computer systems can include students 8 accessing the server 4 aswell as educators 10, such as teachers, school and district officials oradministrators, accessing the server 4. The students 8 can access theserver 4 using either a password or other authentication means. Thestudents 8 perform their daily skill activities and the data is storedin a database 18 by the server 4. The educators 10 also access theserver 4 using either a predefined password or other authenticationmeans. The educators 10 usually access the server 4 to generate reportsdisplaying students' progress as well as each student's performancepredictor or skill set, prescription of intensity, and other parameters.The server 4 generates the reports for viewing by the educators 10 usingspecific graphical representations. Also, the educators 10 are allowedto generate reports specific to a student in a class, class in a schoolas well as to a school in a district.

The server 4 receives requests for access by the client systems 20. Therequests can include standard communication protocols such as TCP/IP orthe like. The server 4 processes these requests and performs theselected or requested operations. In this case, the server 4 includes anumber of modules to perform the educational assessment. The server 4includes a student performance data module 12, a report module 16,student parameter module 14, and an assessment module 6.

When a student 8 sends a transmission of data 9 to the database 18,using a client computer system, to the server 4, that transmission 9includes data generated by the student performing skill activities. Thesever 4 receives the transmission 9 and triggers the execution of theassessment module 6. The assessment module 6 assesses the data sent inthe transmission 9 received by the server 4 and determines that thestudent 8 is adding data to their record. The assessment module 6initiates the activation of the student performance data module 12. Thestudent performance data module 12 issues to the student 8, via amessage 11, their individualized skill activities. The student 8receives the message 11 that contains the individualized skillactivities and proceeds in adjusting the pathway of that student 8 inthe program. Once the student 8 transmits the performance data 9 to thedatabase 18, the student performance data module 12 analyzes the data 9from the database 18 and calculates the student's performance data. Thestudent performance data module 12 provides, via a message 5, to theassessment module 6 the student performance data. The assessment module6 receives the message 5 and calculates the various performanceparameters used in the inventive assessment technique. Also, theassessment module 6 stores the performance parameters associated withthe student 8 into a database structure 18 for later retrieval, orreport generation. The database 18 is stored in the server 4.

The educator 10, such as a teacher, school official or districtofficial, can access the server 4 to generate reports or makeadministrative changes. Using a client system the educator 10 sends arequest 15 to the server 4. The server 4 receives the request 15 andinitiates the activation of the reporting module 16 that analyzes therequest 15 and determines it is from an educator 10. The reportingmodule 16 initiates the activation of the student parameter module 14.

The reporting module 16 determines whether the request 15 is directed ingenerating a report and for whom. If the educator 10 is a teacher, thenthe report module 16 utilizes a report specific to the class of theteacher or their student of interest. If the educator 10 is a school ordistrict administrator, the report module 16 generates a report thatinclude details regarding the educational assessment of the school ordistrict as a whole, which can include the overall assessment of thedistrict, school, grade and particular class. The reporting module 16provides a user interface that allows an educator 10 to select thecriteria of the report they are requesting. The report module 16analyzes the criteria requested for the report and sends a request 17 tothe student parameter module 14 for the required information needed forreport generation. The student parameter module 14 analyzes the request17 and requests via message 23 the student performance and assessmentdata needed to produce the report requested.

The student parameters module 21 analyzes the message 23 and extractsthe information needed to generate the requested report using theinformation provided by the student parameter module 14. The assessmentmodule 6 formulates a query to the database structure 18 to extract theneeded assessment data and students information. After receiving thequery from the student parameters module 14, the database structure 18retrieves the needed assessment data and student information and sendsit to the assessment module 6. The student parameters module 14 receivesthe results of the query and processes the information in a fashion thatthe reporting module 16 can use, and sends the information via a message19 to the reporting module 16. The reporting module 16 receives themessage 19 and processes the received information by calculating thereceived assessment data and student information in a fashion that canbe used for report generation. The reporting module 16 receives themessage 19 and proceeds to produce reports. In particular, the reportingmodule 16 generates reports based on who is requesting the reports andtheir access privileges. In this case, a school administrator canreceive a report that contains information regarding the assessment ofschool, grade, class or student; district administrators can receive areport that contains information regarding assessment of the district,school, grade, class or student while a teacher may receive assessmentreports showing their class or individual students. Based on thecontents in messages 17 and 19, the reporting module 16 generates areport for a specific educator. The report can include variousnumerical, graphical, and other illustrative measures to show relevantinformation. After generating the reports, the reporting module 16sends, via a message 13, the generated report to the educator 10. Theeducator 10 can review the contents of the generated reports.

The education framework 2 can use standard open technologies such asLinux, Apache, and MySQL to build the modules 6, 12, 14, and 16. Theclient system 20 and the server 4 can use platform independentprogramming languages to access the modules 6, 12, 14, and 16 andnecessary programming components. Also, the client system 20 can includesmartphones or other mobile devices. Each of the computers or mobiledevices of the client system 20 and server 4 have a processor, portablestorage, and a processor-readable storage medium that can include but isnot limited to a floppy disk, a mini-disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, flashmemory, data tape, and other conventional storage media as may be knownto those of ordinary skill in the art.

The invention utilizes a novel educational assessment technique forevaluating a student's progress that relies on key elements for progressmonitoring, such as, but not limited to, usage, current program level,rate. The reports generated by the reporting module 16 illustrate usage,performance predictors for kindergarten through grade 3, and skill setsfor grades 4 and above.

Information about student usage is valuable in determining whetherstudents receive the greatest benefit from working on selected programs.Strong usage is likely to result in more progress through the selectedprograms and greater skill acquisition. For each user, usage is based onfinding average weekly time (in minutes) the user worked on the selectedpredefined skill activities. Log in/log out time is updated when thestudent logs out for each student in the database 18 via the assessmentmodule 6 and student performance data module 12. A user's average weeklytime is obtained by summing daily times over an eight-week period anddividing by eight. The eight-week period includes 56 days prior to thecurrent date. Usage information is provided only for students who usethe program at least once over the eight-week period. The followingdescriptions define usage categories: Weak=average weekly time is lessthan or equal to 15 minutes; Fair=average weekly time is greater than orequal to 16 minutes but less than or equal to 44 minutes; Strong=averageweekly time is greater than or equal to 45 minutes.

Information about usage status is available for individual students,classes, grades, schools and districts. Aggregate information can beobtained by averaging the total times of students in the group anddividing by the number of students in the group. Given that averageweekly time is computed based on the 56 days prior to the current date,average weekly times during the first few weeks of use will include dayswith no use and is likely to be “Weak”. As students accrue more weeks ofuse, the usage category becomes a better indicator.

Performance Predictors are a key component to monitoring studentprogress through the selected predefined skill activities. A performancepredictor is a student's percent chance of reaching end-of-yearbenchmark. Performance predictors fall between 1%-99%. A student who hasalready reached end-of-the-year benchmark in a given month is assigned aperformance predictor of 100%. Performance predictors are provided forkindergarten through third grade students who have used Lexia at leastonce in a given month and have shown a sequential progression throughLexia levels.

Performance predictors are calculated at the end of each month and madeavailable on the first day of the following month. For example, astudent with a performance predictor of 56% based on Septemberperformance will have this percentage displayed beginning October 1^(st)and remain during the whole month of October.

To determine performance predictors, a series of logistic regressionanalyses were performed to identify variables that were the strongestpredictors in determining the likelihood of reaching end-of-yearbenchmarks. For every grade and month, certain variables were identifiedas most predictive. The most predictive variables received valuesreflecting their weights (predictive strength) in prediction equationsfor each month in each grade level. These prediction equations were usedon a monthly basis (August 2010 to May 2011, as an example) to derive astudent's percent chance of reaching end-of-year benchmark. There wereone-to-three significant variables in each prediction equation. Examplesof variables used in the prediction equations include current level (thestudent's level in Lexia Reading on the last day of the month), percentof current level complete (percentage of units completed in the currentlevel on the last day of the month) and monthly rate (number of unitsper minute completed during the month).

A stratified random sampling procedure was used to obtain norm samples.First students are divided into six pools based on their total standardscores on the GRADE: 70 and below, 71-85, 86-100, 101-115, 116-130,greater than 130. Then 4, 28, 68, 68, 28 and 4 students are randomlysampled from these pools, respectively. Sampling in this mannerguaranteed a sample of 200 students showing a normal distribution ofreading scores. When sampling from these pools, one can consider ethnicbackground. Proportions of different ethnicities in accordance withnational demographics are maintained. For example, for pools in whichhad an over-representation of Hispanic students, some Hispanic studentsare omitted from the pool (in a random fashion) and then sampled fromthe remaining students. In a few cases, there were not enough studentsin a pool to meet the sample quota for a normal distribution (e.g.,third graders with standard scores greater than 130). In these cases anadjacent pool was sampled. Standard scores for students in the combinednorm samples indicate a nearly perfect normal distribution.

An autoplacement feature was used to establish the initial Lexia Readinglevel for 94% of the students in the norm samples. Of the students whowere autoplaced, 93% were autoplaced at the beginning of the 2010-2011school year. The remaining students were autoplaced in the previousschool year. Those students who were not autoplaced were assigned alevel by their teacher (manual placement). Ninety-seven percent of thestudents showed a sequential progression through Lexia levels (i.e.,worked on one Lexia Reading level at a time and moved on to the nextlevel only when the current level was completed). For the remainingstudents more than one level was open for a period of time.

The norm samples are also used to derive recommendations of LexiaReading use. The recommendations were based on analyzing the amount ofuse required for students identified as “High Risk” to reach end-of-yearbenchmarks. For this analysis one can chose students identified as “HighRisk” in February. By this time students in the norm samples wereclearly distinguishable in terms of their likelihood of reachingend-of-year benchmarks, yet there were enough months left, in the schoolyear for “High Risk” students to reach end-of-year benchmarks. Thefindings show somewhat different use patterns for kindergartnerscompared to first through third graders. In general, first through,third graders required greater use than kindergartners to reachend-of-year benchmarks. Based on the findings, one can recommend between50-70 minutes of Lexia Reading use per week for “High Risk”kindergartners and 80-100 minutes per week for “High Risk” first throughthird graders. Recommendations of use for students identified as “SomeRisk” or “On Target” are less intense than for “High Risk” students, andare consistent with their likelihood of reaching end-of-year benchmarks.Given that the label “Some Risk” is applied to a wide range ofperformance predictors (31-79%), it is evident that not all “Some Risk”students will require the same amount of Lexia Reading use to reachend-of-year benchmarks. Thus, for “Some Risk” students with a 31-50%chance of reaching end-of-year benchmark we recommended higher amountsof Lexia Reading use than for “Some Risk” students with a 51-79% chanceof reaching end-of-year benchmark.

Given that Lexia Reading users in grades 4-12 are nearly always below orwell below grade level, norm samples for them were unable to beobtained. However, similar procedures to the ones described above toderive use recommendations were employed for students in grades 4-12.These students fall into one of three skill sets: basic, elementary orintermediate. Students who used Lexia Reading are examined for at least45 minutes per week and progressed from level 1 of Strategies of OlderStudents (SOS) in February, 2011, to level 4 or 5 of SOS by the end ofMay, 2011. These students advanced from basic skill set to intermediateskill set. Overall, greater use for students in grades 7-12 are foundcompared to grades 4-6. Based on the findings, one can recommend between90-120 minutes of Lexia Reading use per week for students in grades 4-6and 100-150 minutes per week for student's in grades 7-12. Theserecommendations apply to students who are working on basic skills inlevel 1 of SOS or any level of Early Reading or Primary Reading.Recommendations of use for students working on elementary orintermediate skill sets (levels 2-5 of SOS) are less intense than forstudents working on basic skills and are consistent with completingintermediate skills by the end of the school year.

Information about the performance predictor is available for students,classes, grades, schools and districts (for example, percentage ofstudents in a school or district who fall under each of the performancepredictor categories). Students are included in the aggregates if theyused the program at least once during the last calendar month prior tothe date in which the performance predictor status is provided.

In addition to providing the latest performance predictor, historicperformance predictors are recorded monthly on the last day of eachmonth and displayed on the first day of the subsequent month over thecourse of the school year.

Each program level is associated with a “skill set” based on the gradeat which the skills in that level are typically taught. Informationabout skill set is provided for students in grades four and above toindicate the types of skills being worked on at their current (mostrecent) level.

The following are the skill sets used in accordance with the invention:Intermediate=skills approximately at a fourth-sixth, grade level;Elementary=skills approximately at a second-third grade level;Basic=skills approximately at a kindergarten-first grade level.Information about skill set is provided for students, classes, grades,schools and districts. Students are included in the aggregates if theyused the program at least once during the eight weeks prior to the datein which the skill set is provided. In addition to providing the latestskill set status, historic skill sets are recorded on the last day ofeach month and displayed on the first day of the subsequent month overthe course of the school year.

For students in grades Kindergarten to third grade, based on studentprogram level aid rate of progress, the performance predictors can beused to indicate each student's percent chance of reaching theend-of-year benchmark for his or her grade level. Calculated on amonthly basis, the performance predictor is a critical measure of riskof potential reading failure. Predictors are calculated on the first dayof each calendar month, based on a prior months work. The firstperformance predictor is available the first day of second month of use.End-of-year benchmarks were established based on a normed sample as wellas using grade level and state standards. The end-of-year benchmarks arecorrelated to performance on nationally used and previously validatedprogress monitoring tools that are independent of Lexia Reading. Eachstudent's performance predictor or skill set determines the level ofintensity of instruction needed to increase the likelihood of thestudent reaching end-of-year benchmark or to increase the grade level ofthe material the students are working on. This monthly prescriptionincludes the number of minutes the student should use the program, inaddition to available, recommended, scripted lessons for the teacher totarget instruction.

FIG. 2 is a table 120 listing the Prescription of (Instructional)Intensity recommendations categorized by grade, performance predictor orskill set. These recommendations were determined through analysis of anormed sample as discussed above.

FIG. 3 is a process flow 30 illustrating calculating current performancepredictors used in accordance with the invention. The assessment module6 performs these steps and the results are stored in the database 18 forlater retrieval by the student parameter module 14 and reporting module16. As shown in step 32, the student works on their software programassociated with their individualized skill activities where theperformance data is sent hack to the server 4 to be stored via theassessment module 6 and database structure 18, as shown in step 34. Forevery month, on the last day of the month all the students who haveworked in the last month including those in Kindergarten, first grade,second grade, or third grade, their student activity level informationwith respect to their usage is determined, as step in 35. The assessmentmodule 6 retrieves this information from the database structure 18.Also, it is important to determine the current norm referenced data forcomparison. This is accomplished by calculating the month offset intothe school year from the current date using the school's start month andyear. Note that the month offset for calculations run on the first dayin a month, is the offset of the previous month since the calculation isfor the previous day. The assessment module 6 stores the currentperformance predictor values attained in the database structure 18.Moreover, the current performance data of each of the students arecompared against the month and the student's grade and put intoproprietary formulas, as shown in step 36. Based on the norm sampledata, a student's current rate and accuracy categories are determined bycomparing performance data to the norm sample, as shown in step 37. Asmentioned earlier, the current performance predictors are defined asfollows: On Target, Some Risk, and High Risk. Afterwards, the assessmentmodule 6 stores the performance predictors for later retrieval to thedatabase 18. Moreover, educators can send requests to the reportingmodule 16 for reports, as shown in step 38. The reporting module 16generate reports with the parameters calculated, as show in step 39.

FIG. 4 is a process flow 40 illustrating calculating historicalperformance predictors used in accordance with the invention. Historicalperformance predictors are calculated on the first of the month by theassessment module 6. The assessment module 6 stores the computedhistorical performance predictors in the database structure 18 forcomparison purposes. As shown in step 41, the student works on theirsoftware program associated with their individualized skill activitieswhere the performance data is sent back to the server 4 to be stored viathe assessment module 6 and database structure 18, as shown in step 42.As shown in step 43, on the first of the month, for every student whohas worked in the program the prior month the usage activity or activitylevel with the program is computed. This entails getting the lastactivity the student worked on in this time period, getting the level ofthe last activity the student worked on, and getting the start date ofthe student's school. The historical performance predictors aredetermined for each student for comparison purposes by using proprietaryformulas that are applied to the performance data to calculatehistorical performance predictors, as shown in step 44. The historicalperformance predictors are calculated after the first month of programuse in the school year after the school's start date for the year.Afterwards, performance data are compared to norm sample data todetermine historical rate and accuracy categories, as shown in step 45.Afterwards, the assessment module 6 stores the historical performancepredictors for later retrieval to the database structure 18. Moreover,educators can send requests to the reporting module 16 for reportsillustrating the historical predictors, as shown in step 46. Thereporting module 16 generate reports with the parameters calculated, asshow in step 47.

Based on the proprietary formulas for the month and grade of thestudent, a student historical performance predictor is calculated, asshown in step 44. As mentioned earlier, the performance predictors aredefined as follows: On Target, Some Risk, and High Risk. Afterwards, theassessment module 6 stores the historical performance predictor to thedatabases structure 18 for later retrieval.

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram illustrating a district report 50generated by the reporting module 16 in accordance with the invention.The report 50 includes regions 52, 54, 56, and 58 that illustratespecific information for district officials. The region 52 defines thecurrent performance status of the students in the districts. Inparticular, a number of pie charts 88, 90 illustrate the performancepredictors and skill sets of the students that are provided by theprocess in FIG. 3. The region 56 shows the progress section thatdisplays the percentage of students in each performance predictor andskill set category in monthly intervals. As the school year progressesone can gauge student progress by monitoring how the percentages ofperformance predictors and skill set categories are increasing ordecreasing. Progress is measured monthly and displayed in monthsegments, and includes all students who used the program at least oncein the previous calendar month for kindergarten through third grade andat least once in the last eight weeks for students in fourth grade andabove. Region 54 shows a usage pie chart 92 displaying student programusage based on average weekly minutes for the past 8 weeks. The usagepie chart 92 includes all grades, and therefore the number of studentswill be the total number of students in the performance predictors andskill set pie charts 88, 90. This includes only students who have usedthe program at least once in the previous calendar month forkindergarten through third grade and at least once in the last eightweeks for students in fourth grade and above. Region 58 shows the schooltables providing a concise overview of usage and status for a district'stop/bottom ten schools. These tables feature the most recent snapshot ofperformance predictors, skill sets, and usage data. A district officialcan view schools by clicking any school name to view a school'sperformance predictors and skill set percentages by grade (for example,all of the school's current status, progress, and usage information). Ifa district official wants to see schools sorted differently they can usethe drop-down menus to view the Top/Bottom ten performance predictor.Top/bottom ten skill sets, and Top/Bottom ten schools by usage. You canfurther sort the list by clicking any column header. Also, statusoverall and status for grades in a certain school or district can beviewed according to the Top/Bottom ten performance predictor. Top/bottomten skill sets, and Top/Bottom ten usage.

FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating a school report 60 generatedby the reporting module 16 in accordance with the invention. The report60 includes a number of regions 51, 53, 55 and 57 that illustrateassessment and usage information specific for a school. The region 51shows the performance predictors and skill sets of the students in aschool. With respect to the performance predictors, they are assignedthe following identifiers: On Target, Some Risk, and High Risk. Withrespect to the skill sets, they are assigned the following identifiers:Intermediate, Elementary, and Basic. Moreover, the region 51 includespie charts 61, 62 illustrating a current snapshot of performancepredictors and skill sets of only students who have used the LexiaReading at least once in the past 8 weeks.

Region 53 shows the progress section that displays the percentage ofstudents in each performance predictor and skill set category in monthlyintervals. As the school year progresses, one can gauge student progressby monitoring how the percentages of performance predictors and skillsets are increasing or decreasing. Region 55 includes a usage pie chart63 that displays student program usage based on average weekly minutesfor the past 8 weeks. The usage pie chart 63 includes all grades andtherefore the number of students will total the number of students inthe performance predictors and skill set charts 61, 62. The pie chart 63shows only the student who have used the Lexia Reading program at leastonce in the past 8 weeks. Region 57 shows the school's grade tableproviding a concise overview of a school's current status. These tablesfeature the most recent snapshots of performance predictors, skill set,and usage data.

District users can view schools by any school name to view a schoolcombine report, for example, all of the school's current status,progress, and usage information. If your district, has more than 10schools one can use the drop-down menus to view the Top/Bottom tenperformance predictors, Top/Bottom ten skill sets, and Top/Bottom tenusage. One can further sort the list by clicking any column header.School user can view grades. If a school has more than 10 grades, onecan use the drop-down menu to view Top/Bottom ten performancepredictors, Top/Bottom ten skill sets, Top/Bottom ten usage. One canalso sort the list by clicking any column or header.

FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram illustrating a teacher report 78 generatedby the reporting module 16 in accordance with the invention. The report78 includes number regions 80, 82, 84, and 86 that illustrate assessmentand usage information specific for a class. Region 80 shows aninstruction needed list that displays all students in a class who arestraggling with an activity and may require explicit teacher-directedinstruction in order to progress. Students are grouped according to theprogram level and skills in which they are struggling in order tofacilitate small group instruction. A teacher can click on a skill nameto view a selected predefined lesson that can be used, in a teacher-ledinstructional session with students. By clicking a student name, astudent skills report is provided for a detailed look at the student'scurrent and past performance.

Region 82 shows a pie chart 94 displaying the performance predictorand/or skill set, depending on the grade(s) of the student in the class.The chart 94 is a snapshot of current and includes only students whohave used the program at least once in the last calendar month forstudents in grades K-3 and at least once in the past 8 weeks forstudents in grades 4-12. Region 84 shows a usage line graph 96displaying the average minutes per week of use for the entire class. Ashaded region indicates the overall or general recommended levels ofusage. This graph 96 includes all students in the class who have usedthe program at least once in the past 8 weeks. By clicking the detailbutton under the class usage graph 96, each student's average weeklyusage and total usage is displayed.

Region 86 shows a student table providing a concise overview of theclass by reporting each student's current status. In particular, if astudent is struggling a special icon is displayed and by clicking on thestudent's name, the teacher can view the student combined report thatshows usage, performance and skill completion status. Moreover, thestudent's average weekly program usage over the past 8 weeks isdisplayed. The report 78 shows the student's current program assignment.Each student should have only one assigned at a time. When a student isdetermined to be struggling with one or more units a special icon isdisplayed in the “Lessons” column and an icon drawing attention to thestudent is displayed next to the student name. By clicking the specialicon in the “Lessons” column, a lesson is provided to a teacher that canbe used for teacher-led, small group instruction. When a student hascompleted a program level in the past two weeks, an icon is displayed inthe “Certificate Available” column. By clicking this icon, detailedinformation regarding the achievement certificate is provided.

FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram, illustrating a section of a teacherreport 100 generated by the reporting module 16 in accordance with theinvention that uses performance predictors. The performance predictorscan also be displayed for each of the students in a separate column 102.Column 102 will display skill sets for students in grades 4-12. Ateacher can sort by performance predictors, which would in turn sort therecommended usage column 106 into 4 groupings (for ease of planning).The lines 108 around the three columns 102, 104, 106 indicate that theperformance predictor or skill set drives the prescription of intensity.By putting the lessons along with recommended program usage under theprescription of intensity, one can drive home the message that it is notonly more time on the computer but teacher intervention that can improveperformance. The teacher has the two usage columns next to each otherfor easy comparison.

The invention provides an education framework that allows for assessmentwithout testing. This invention allows for direct control and easieraccess to student information that provides districts, schools, andteachers a better understanding of the educational development of theirstudents. Also, the invention provides customized, easy-to-understandreports that allow users to understand thoroughly the performance oftheir students as well as a way to help address student's difficulties,all without stopping instruction time to administer a traditional test.

Although the present invention has been shown and described with respectto several preferred embodiments thereof, various changes, omissions andadditions to the form and detail thereof, may be made therein, withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. An apparatus, comprising: a server systemincluding a processor and a memory, the processor configured toadminister an educational assessment at a plurality of client systemsvia a network connecting the server system to the plurality of clientsystems, independent of one or more educators so as to avoidinterruption of instruction time, the processor configured to monitoruse of a language learning system by each student from a plurality ofstudents during the educational assessment, the processor configured tocalculate an average usage time of each student from the plurality ofstudents over a period of time based on (1) that student's monitoredusage of the language learning system and (2) a plurality of otherstudent performance variables associated with that student, theprocessor configured to calculate a comparison value for each studentfrom the plurality of students by comparing the average usage time ofthat student over the period of time to norm sample data, the processorconfigured to calculate a performance predictor for each student fromthe plurality of students and in a timely manner based on the comparisonvalue for that student, the performance predictor for a student from theplurality of students indicating that student's chance of meeting apredefined benchmark, the predefined benchmark being based on the normsample data and indicating a level of instruction intensity forincreasing a likelihood that each student from the plurality of studentsmeets the predefined benchmark, the processor configured to,simultaneous to calculating the performance predictor for each studentfrom the plurality of students, generate a skill set identifierassociated with each student from the plurality of students, and theprocessor configured to generate a report including (1) the performancepredictor for each student from the plurality of students and (2) aquantified risk variable associated with each student from the pluralityof students, the report including a prescription for each student fromthe plurality of students, the prescription for each student from theplurality of students including (1) a target average usage time for thatstudent, and (2) available lessons to target at that student based atleast in part on the skill set identifier associated with that student.2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each student from the plurality ofstudents performs one or more selected daily skill activities during theeducational assessment.
 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein theprocessor is configured to analyze a performance, by a student from theplurality of students, of one or more selected daily skill activitiesduring the educational assessment, so as to calculate the plurality ofother student performance variables associated with that student.
 4. Theapparatus of claim 1, wherein the predefined benchmark is calculatedbased on a percentage of students included in the norm sample thatcompleted each level of one or more selected daily activities of theeducational assessment.
 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the skillset identifier associated with each student from the plurality ofstudents defines an educational level that that student has achieved byusing the language learning system.
 6. The apparatus of claim 1,wherein: the report is customized for a type of educator; the pluralityof students is a plurality of students associated with a first class;and the report further includes performance predictors associated witheach student from a plurality of students associated with a second classwhen the type of educator is a school administrator.
 7. The apparatus ofclaim 1, wherein each student from the plurality of students is assigneda usage category based on the average usage time of that student overthe period of time.
 8. A method, comprising: administering, to a clientsystem connected to a server system via a network, an educationalassessment independent of one or more educators, so as to avoidinterruption of instruction time; monitoring use of a language learningsystem by a student during the educational assessment; calculating, atthe server system, an average usage of the language learning system bythe student over a period of time based on (1) the monitored use of thelanguage learning system by the student and (2) a plurality of otherstudent performance variables associated with the student; calculating,at the server system, a comparison value for the student by comparingthe average usage over the period of time to norm sample data;calculating, at the server system, a performance predictor of thestudent in a timely manner and based on the comparison value, theperformance predictor indicating the student's likelihood of meeting apredefined benchmark, the predefined benchmark being based on the normsample data, the processor configured to, simultaneous to calculatingthe performance predictor, generate a skill set identifier associatedwith the student; generating, at the server system, a report including(1) the performance predictor, (2) a quantified risk variable indicatinga risk of failure of the student to meet the predefined benchmark, and(3) a prescription for the student that includes (A) a target averageusage for the student, and (B) available lessons to target at thestudent based at least in part on the skill set identifier associatedwith the student; and prescribing, at the server system, a level ofintensity of instruction for improving the student's likelihood ofmeeting the predefined benchmark, based on the report.
 9. The method ofclaim 8, wherein the student performs one or more selected daily skillactivities during the educational assessment.
 10. The method of claim 8,further comprising: analyzing the performance, by the student, of one ormore selected daily skill activities during the educational assessment,and calculating the plurality of other student performance variablesassociated with the student based on analysis of the performance of theone or more selected daily skill activities.
 11. The method of claim 8,wherein the student performs one or more selected daily skill activitiesduring the educational assessment and the predefined benchmark iscalculated based on a percentage of students included in the norm sampledata that completed each level of the one or more selected daily skillactivities of the educational assessment.
 12. The method of claim 8,wherein the skill set identifier of the student defines an educationallevel that the student has achieved by using the language learningsystem.
 13. The method of claim 8, wherein: the report is customized fora type of educator; a first plurality of students is associated with afirst class; the report further includes a performance predictorassociated with each student from the first plurality of students whenthe educator type is a teacher; and the report further includes aperformance predictor associated with each student from the firstplurality of students and a performance predictor associated with eachstudent from a second plurality of students associated with a secondclass when the educator type is a school administrator.
 14. The methodof claim 8, wherein the student is assigned a usage category based onthe average usage of the student over the period of time.
 15. Anon-transitory processor-readable medium storing code representinginstructions to be executed by a processor, the code comprising code tocause the processor to: administer, to a client system connected to aserver system via a network, an educational assessment independent ofone or more educators, so as to avoid interruption of instruction time;monitor, at the server system, use of a language learning system by astudent during the educational assessment; calculate an average usage ofthe language learning system by the student over a period of time basedon (1) the monitored use of the language learning system by the studentand (2) a plurality of other student performance variables associatedwith the student; calculate, at the server system, a comparison valuefor the student by comparing the average usage over the period of timeto norm sample data, calculate, at the server system and in a timelymanner, a performance predictor of the student based on the comparisonvalue, the performance predictor indicating the student's likelihood ofmeeting a predefined benchmark, the predefined benchmark being based onthe norm sample data, the processor configured to, simultaneous tocalculating the performance predictor, generate a skill set identifierassociated with the student; generate a report including the performancepredictor, a quantified risk variable indicating a risk of failure ofthe student to meet the predefined benchmark, and a prescription for thestudent that includes (1) a target average usage time for the student,and (2) available lessons to target at the student based at least inpart on the skill set identifier associated with the student; andprescribe a level of intensity of instruction for improving thestudent's likelihood of meeting the predefined benchmark, based on thereport.
 16. The non-transitory processor-readable medium of claim 15,wherein each student from a plurality of students including the studentperforms one or more selected daily skill activities during theeducational assessment.
 17. The non-transitory processor-readable mediumof claim 15, wherein the code further comprises code to cause theprocessor to: analyze a performance, by the student, of one or moreselected daily skill activities during the educational assessment; andcalculate the plurality of other student performance variablesassociated with the student based on analysis of the performance of theone or more selected daily skill activities.
 18. The non-transitoryprocessor-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the predefined benchmarkis calculated based on a percentage of students included in the normsample that completed each level of one or more selected dailyactivities of the educational assessment.
 19. The non-transitoryprocessor-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the skill set identifierof the student defines an educational level that the student hasachieved by using the language learning system.
 20. The non-transitoryprocessor-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the student is assigned ausage category based on the average usage time of the student over theperiod of time.